Politics is POWER

The full scope of the study of politics is a contested issue which many scholars have raised throughout time and one which remains relevant even today. Some academics are of the opinion that the study of politics is concerned mainly with the relations of power in society, the institutions which regulate said relations and the processes and procedures by which these institutions change. This approach forms part of a school of thought known as neo-institutionalism, which, broadly defined, is a methodological approach in the study of political science, economics, organizational behaviour, and sociology that explores how institutional structures, rules, norms, and cultures constrain the choices and actions of individuals when they are part of a political institution and how said institutions emerge and change, and how they interact with society through power relations (Ishiyama, 2014). This essay will challenge this neo-institutionalist approach to defining the study of politics by looking at other approaches like liberalism, which is more concerned with individual liberty, and communitarianism, which is interested communities and societies, and will determine which of these three approaches offers a more holistic definition and understanding of the study of politics, offering a resolution in the case that more than just one is needed in defining and understanding politics at a fundamental level.

Contrary to the institutionalist approach, liberalism is a political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics (Minogue, 1998). It differs from the institution-centric definition in question in how it decentralises power from a body of institutions by protecting and prioritising the rights, freedoms and interests of the individual in a given society. This, however, is not to say that institutions like government have no role in a liberal framework; instead, this approach prescribes that the duty of the institution is to protect individuals from being harmed while emphasising that this duty must be regulated, as it acknowledges that institutions can, and probably will, pose a threat to the individual’s liberty. (Minogue, 1998) Therefore, a liberal approach at defining the study of politics would be one that undermines the importance of institutions, limiting their power to the promotion and protection of the freedom of the individual.

Furthermore, another key distinction between the institutional definition of politics and the liberalist approach is the process and procedure by which institutions change in society. While ne0-institutionalism maintains that institutions (mainly) have the power to decide the mechanisms and logistics through which they change, liberalism says a process which institutionalises competition — such as the competition between different political parties in electoral contests, between prosecution and defence in adversary procedure, or between different producers in a market economy — generates a dynamic social order (Minogue, 1998). Although this may seem similar to democracy, it is not limited thereto, as this liberal view of studying politics can be applied to other political systems and can help scholars understand, and critically analyse the rest of the political spectrum against the prescriptions of the liberalist perspective.

The liberalist approach is therefore a more relaxed, organic and dynamic approach at defining and understanding the study of politics. By emphasising its focus on individuals, rather than institutions, it gives a more holistic view of politics. This is due to how much of liberalism is centred on the individuals which make up society – the same individuals who work within institutions and regulate them as well as the same individuals who decide the processes and procedures by which these institutions change. Liberalism, thus, can be seen as a more granular approach to defining and studying politics – as it focuses on the interests of those within political structures, and not just the political structures themselves.

In addition to the liberalist approach to defining politics, there too is the communitarianist approach which is defined as “the social and political philosophy that emphasizes the importance of community in the functioning of political life, in the analysis and evaluation of political institutions, and in understanding human identity and well-being” (Etzioni, 2009). It differs from the neo-institutionalist approach, as well as the liberalist approach in how it focuses neither on the institution, nor the individual. Instead it focuses on the community at large and the power relations therein, as well as the nature of the community’s engagement with institutions and the community’s role in changing said institutions through processes and procedures. This, however, is not to say that communitarianism has no place for institutions and authority – conversely, this perspective prescribes that power should be conferred to institutions absolutely, provided that this maximises the welfare of the community (Etzioni, 2009). This part of the communitarianism approach has been explored thoroughly by scholars of East Asian politics and society, like diplomat Bilahari Kausikan, who, having grown up in within an authoritarian societies such as Singapore (similar to China and Malaysia) saw benefit in studying politics through a communitarianist lens as it helped him identify value in extolled social obligations and the importance of the common good when accorded with much less autonomy and rights (Amitzai, A). However, the main principle of communitarianism in respect to the institution, is that its power is reliant on whether it will maximise community welfare.

Moreover, there is a key distinction between the neo-institutional view of politics and the communitarianist approach in how they tackle the processes and procedures by which institutions change in society. Where the institutionalist approach says institutions have the power, provided that they are legitimate, to decide how they change, communitarianism says: “No change is justified in governing public policies and norms [and institutions] unless society encounters serious challenges, because these kinds of changes exact considerable societal costs.” (Etzioni, 2009). This, consequently, renders communitarianism as responsive and not proactive in its procedures, processes and rules.

Therefore, communitarianism can be criticised as inferior to the neo-institutional approach in defining and understanding the study of politics; its responsive nature renders it unpredictable, inconsistent and difficult to apply to any other economic theories and systems. Unlike the institution-centric politics definition, it has no set rules – and so holds very little rank in the discussion of which approach best encompasses all the aspects of political science.

Having critically analysed other approaches in defining politics in respect to power, institutions, processes and their symbiotic relationship with society – it is safe to say that the neo-institutional definition is not the worst approach; in fact many scholars have a high regard for this way of defining and understanding politics. The founders of this school, James G. March and Johan P. Olsen argued that political scientists needed to rediscover institutional analysis in order to better understand the behaviour of individual political actors within political institutions (Ishiyama, 2014). The intention of their founding this school of thought was not to emphasise the importance of the institution in politics, but rather to emphasise the importance of the institution and the importance of the individual in the study and definition of politics

Therefore, this essay is of the opinion that there is immense value in considering both an institution-centric and a liberalist approach in defining and studying politics. This is because both approaches consider fundamental aspects of what politics is as can be shown via the more objective definition of politics, taken from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary which defines politics as “competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership”. The dichotomy in this definition is clearly a divide between interest groups (institutions) and individuals and thus shows that at a fundamental level, politics should be viewed, understood, defined and studied through these topics. This is not an uncommon line to draw, as many disciplines are divided into two main parts – one of them being how economics is taught at the University of Cape Town and other institutions around the world, at a micro and macro level. So too can be done with politics, as one cannot fully understand institutions without looking at the individuals within and without said institutions, nor can one fully understand individuals in a political context, without looking at the institutions which govern them. This would be a great way to teach politics in university, at least at a foundational phase, as it simplifies an otherwise complex and much contested argument of what, exactly, politics is concerned with.

Thus, this essay concludes that a holistic approach in defining and understanding politics is one that draws from both the schools of neo-institutionalism as well as liberalism. This conclusion was made from first defining neo-institutionalism and then critically comparing this school of thought to other schools, namely liberalism, which was found to important and valuable in ways that neo-institutionalism was not, and then communitarianism which was found to be the least useful of the three owing to its lack of consistency. Finally, this essay found an interesting and mutually beneficial relationship in studying both the institution and the individuals within and without said institutions, making a suggestion to how politics should be taught at a fundamental level in university as this would new scholars and academics the opportunity to better understand the otherwise complicated and debated issue of what, exactly, politics is concerned with.

Reference list

1. Etzioni, A, 2009. Communitarianism. Encyclopedia Britanica, [Online]. 1, 1. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/communitarianism [Accessed 23 March 2018].

2. Ishiyama, J, 2014. Neoinstituionalism. Encyclopedia Britanica, [Online]. 1, 1. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoinstitutionalism [Accessed 23 March 2018].

3. Merriem-Webster. 2018. Politics. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/dichotomy. [Accessed 23 March 2018].

4. Minogue, K, 1998. Liberalism. Encyclopedia Britainica, [Online]. 1, 1. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism [Accessed 23 March 2018].